MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3185947290 · doi:10.7340/anuac2239-625x-4891

Posthumanist perspectives on transhumanist marketing: More than human genes, more than market promotion

2021· article· en· W3185947290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueANUAC. · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranshumanismHuman enhancementPosthumanismPromotion (chess)SociologyMarketingBusinessEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transhumanism advocates enhancement of current human capacities with new technologies, in pursuit of human improvement and perfection, and thereby creates lucrative marketing opportunities. We use the broader concept of posthumanism, which includes this, but also all the other ways in which humans are enhanced by non-humans. However, our study is not about posthumanism, but about how a posthumanist critique can enhance our analyses and diagnoses. We consider not just technology, but also other species such as our microbiome, in an effort to critically examine transhumanist marketing, and develop analytic tools to better understand it. The limitations are highlighted with an extended example of the marketing of health information in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Transhumanist marketing is distinguished between “ends”, promoting products, and “means”, as ways to facilitate marketing. We offer a typology of motivations for consumption of transhumanist goods and services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it